Category Archives:
CL Edwards/ Calling Muslims

Recently I exchanged a few comments with Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun and their friend Radical Moderate on an Apologetic Christian’s website. This is the advice that Radical Moderate, with the approval of Sam Shamoun and Anthony Rogers, gave to me:

I apologize to our younger readers for having to read these statements, but the purpose of this post is to show the mindset of these Christians. Not only is such a statement perverse and morally despicable to tell a young man, I find it really disheartening to see the kind of thoughts that these old men entertain. They are all almost double my age and I must that these comments were extremely inappropriate. In fact Sam Shamoun saw it fit to explain to Radical Moderate how to spell the word ‘whore’ in Arabic, in the same comments thread:

In the end, the result is that these Christian missionaries are promoting sodomy, sexual abuse with a person of the same gender and at the end of the day, they have learned how to spell, “whore/ prostitute” in the Arabic language. If this is the low level of discussion these people can sink to, I am truly sorry for the state of Christianity today. However, as it stands, I refuse to give into their sexual advances and I hope and pray that no other young person, whether male or female has to face such online sexual abuse from these gentlemen.

If you or someone you know has also faced sexual advances or any other form of inappropriate sexual comments, from any of these men pleasereport it as soon as possible:

People of this nature tend to prey online and we should not be afraid to speak out against their actions. Soliciting young teens, and children as they are doing to me, can also happen to your kids who try to seek advice from them. They hold positions in the community that allow them to be alone and interact with young persons and this should not be allowed, they should be monitored. I discuss theology with them, do debates with them and while the abuse and insults are common from them and while I can handle the insults:

It is the soliciting of sex online, with someone half their age and of the same sex which is disturbing and shocking to say the least. While I am sure they will claim they are “joking” or were just trying to be “insulting”, they have definitely gone beyond simple banter and reached the realms of sexual perversion. It should also be known that the poster of the comment, named Radical Moderate also has numerous unauthorized audio recordings and conversations that he has had with me and that I have had with others. Although I have blocked him and at the time of many of the voice recordings, he was banned from the chat room I frequent, yet he was still able to record my voice. He is works as a computer technician and may have used his skills to bypass the ban on the chat room to subsequently record my statements. I am honestly appalled by his actions.

Anthony added to the conversation not too long after, I couldn’t get a screenshot with his name in it due to the length of the comment, but this is what he stated:

I have no idea what my ‘loins’ have to do with him making a video and why it promises to be painful, but if I take his comments in line with his friend, Radical Moderate’s comment (pictured above), then this is beyond sexually perverse. I’m not sure if I should even continue to check the comments they are posting, it’s only getting worse as time progresses. If this is the kind of violent, sadistic, sexually barbaric acts that these men can speak about openly in the public domain about, I am very afraid for what they are capable of doing to young kids in their presence.

You can read more on what their Scripture, the Bible, says on sexually abusing others here, as well as more threats and sexual advances by Sam Shamoun & Anthony Rogers’ friends here:

After bringing Chessie Edwards’ attention to my response, he took the initiative to reply in a new post on his blog. I’d like to thank him for continuing to draw Christian viewership to our website and we pray he continues to do so in the future. Unfortunately, as expected from Biblical Evangelists, Chessie began his response with mockery and insults:

Unfortunately the god of the unregenerate is Satan who is far from having any Rahma

I’m not really sure how his opening statement really answers me or in what way it was relevant to the topic at hand, I’ll leave the floor open for Chessie to address that. If this was his idea of building anticipation for what the rest of his blog post will present, I’m not very much looking forward to it. In any case, let’s examine his claims:

Actually that’s not what I said, I said ” Christ being “sinless”is beyond mere moral conduct it has to do with nature.”. This is just one testament to the Muslim bloggers many reading errors, he seems to see what he would like a text to say, instead of what it really says..he uses the same faulty hermeneutic with the Bible. My Christology which I believe is orthodox, is Christ did not become sinless by living a sinless life(his not sinning is not the cause of him being a sinless man), He didn’t sin because he was by nature sinless(his sinless nature was the cause of his sinless life). I did not say Christ sinless behavior had nothing to do with why we consider Him sinless, I said our doctrine go’s beyond that. I am sure the blogger will ignore what I just said and decide I said whatever he feels I said. Yet to fair minded Muslims, know such details are not minor, they are major in Christian Theology.

We agree with Chessie when he says Christ’s nature is to be sinless, which is why I am puzzled when he says I took his statements out of context. Recall from my previous response where I said:

I couldn’t agree more, it’s finally good to see him accepting the Islamic position of all children being born upon the “fitrah” or “pure nature”.

The fitrah or “pure nature” means that a child is born with a clean slate, free of influences, no record, completely new to the word, not a single penalty against the child. When he says this, I am in full agreement:

He didn’t sin because he was by nature sinless(his sinless nature was the cause of his sinless life).

We also believe as Muslims that the Anbiya (Prophets) are sinless in Islam. So again, I see no reason for him to state that we disagree with his premises. Perhaps he was just finishing for an argument, but I shall not take his bait. He continues:

Christians believe as the Bible teaches that Christ had two natures, His Divinity and the second undefiled human nature He took on. As I clearly explained in the quote, Christ was never contaminated with the sin nature that effects the rest of humanity(or maybe the blogger thinks humans don’t sin?). The Islamic doctrine of fitrah has nothing to do with anything I said , but again the blogger sees what he wants to see.

Some questions need to be asked here:

Where does the NT teach the hypostatic union, i..e that Christ has two natures?

That Christs’ nature was undefiled (as we know Christ was abandoned by God on the cross, does God abandon sinless persons, but aids sinful persons?).

The Fitrah is the nature of being born pure, without sin, how does this have nothing to do with Christ being born free of sin?

In an odd way, he then decides to demonstrate original sin is actually from the Qur’an and not the Bible by posting an article link which I refuted many months ago, which you can read here, “Proving Original Sin from the Qur’an“. Yet the question still stands, can Chessie Edwards ever prove the Original Sin from the Bible? He’s demonstrated that either he cannot read or doesn’t want to fully answer the question. Chessie continues:

We see this from the blogger, he doesn’t have the time to deal with what I(or others) are saying, that would get in the way of him making his point(weather his point has anything to do with Christian doctrine or not). Obviously he gets this from his god who makes all sorts of theological errors in addressing Christians in the Quran. See the following article from bother Sam Shamoun.

Well, now I’m a bit confused:

I quote Chessie’s article on my website.

Chessie goes to my websites and quotes my quote of him.

Chessie writes a response based on my quote of him.

Chessie literally quoted himself and responds to it. I’m not sure if he confused himself, but he seriously quoted himself and then attempted to refute the quote by saying it was nonsensical, made up etc. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry out of pity. He then decided to link to Sam Shamoun’s article, which is refuted here by Br. Bassam Zawadi. Mr. Edwards continues:

The blogger is off in la la land, I am not sure why he didn’t see ” All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah “, why doesn’t he get ” All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah” is what I am saying is beyond mere moralism? If the blogger obeyed the moral commands or even ritual commands of the Law(The blogger seems to not know the word Law is used many different ways in the Bible, and there many aspects to the Mosaic commands.. a whole other subject) would that mean he now would fulfill ” All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament …” ?

As explained in my previous response, and as explained in the video by Rabbi Michael Skobac, there were many Messiahs prophesied by in the Tanach, however according to the Tanach itself, there is no “The Messiah” to come. Of course, this is where we as Muslims would disagree as we do believe ‘Aissa [alayhi as salaam] was the Masih (Christ), but we do agree with the understanding that the Tanach (corrupted as it is), does not point to “a” Messiah. In fact, if one would notice, he doesn’t reference a single prophecy or promise of the Bible this time. The reason being that I refuted his quote of Isaiah (Yeshayahu) by presenting the Hebrew version as opposed to the modern Christian version. His silence is deafening and a clear indicator that he has no prophecies or promises to present from his Bible. He continues:

That would be a nice quote if by Law what was being discussed was merely moral commands…I feel like I am repeating myself…

The “Law” are “moral commands from God”, unless what he meant by Law, was not the word Law. Since that is the case, he needs to choose his words better. If the word “law” does not mean “law”, then the onus is on your Mr. Edwards to explicitly use the words you wish to convey your message accurately. What does the “law” mean Mr. Edwards, if not “moral commands from God”? He continues:

The rest of this is unworthy of my time, I am quite busy and reading his post induces headaches.

Apparently my posts are now “unworthy of his time”, although by him posting two articles about my arguments he’s stating the opposite! While I am sure my posts give him headaches and while that does please me, I really do wish for him to be guided. He continues:

But, if he is taking ilm from the Jews now, I hope he accepts their reasons for rejecting Muhammad, then again maybe he is now rejecting Jesus or is an Atheist..a Jew..if its expedient will he next be a liberal post modernist? ..who knows.

After a seemingly long absence from the apologetics realm, Chessie L. Edwards has once again returned, with a brand new article. You can read my previous responses to all of his articles here. I am pleased to see that not much has changed, he was attempting to respond to this post of mine. Specifically trying to respond to Argument #1.

His Introduction:

Christ being “sinless”is beyond mere moral conduct it has to do with nature. Christ was not born of a male, he was supernaturally conceived without sperm to the virgin Mary. What this all means is that he was not under the curse of Adam, he did not have the fallen wretched sinful natural that afflicts all other men.

According to Chessie, Christ was not sinless due to moral conduct, but due to being born that way, as he puts it, this was “Christ’s nature”. I couldn’t agree more, it’s finally good to see him accepting the Islamic position of all children being born upon the “fitrah” or “pure nature”. We as Muslims also agree with the notion that Christ was not born of a male, however we would like to ask him what curse of Adam he is referring to? That is because, while I am sure he meant the “original sin”, this belief has no Biblical basis. In fact, the only curse of Adam would be that of Genesis 3:14-15, which does not mention any man having been cursed by God to be born with sin.

What is meant by ‘Christ fulfilled the Law’:

When it is said Christ fulfilled the Law and Old Testament, what is being spoken of is again beyond human moral-ism. All the promises, types and shadows in the old Testament pointed to the Messiah. No mere prophet was going to fulfill the words of Isaiah when he said….

According to Chessie, following the law, does not mean following the law, as he comprehends it to mean being above “human morality”. So by that logic, if we “follow” the law “perfectly”, i.e. we fulfil it, does that mean we in ourselves are above “human morality”?

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. – Bible, Luke 1:5-6.

Clearly he needs to sit down and study his own Bible, after all these two verses which demonstrate that humans can practise all of the law blamelessly, is in the first chapter of the Gospel according to “Luke”. One of the problems we see with Christians is their poor study of the Old Testament. Rabbi Michael Skobac discusses the irrational belief of the Christians and their prophecies of their concept of a Messiah:

While as Muslims we do accept Jesus as the Messiah, we do not agree, along with the Jews that the Messiah is to be a God, a sacrificial son, a Trinitarian, etc. In the above video, the Rabbi examines the claims of “prophetic-God Messiah-ship”, it’s well worth the time to watch it. Chessie then tries to claim that Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about Christ being foretold as the Son of God, something which I answered here.

He then proceeded to quote a variety of verses that reference Paul’s and Christ’s attitude pertaining to the law, something which I have already discussed in detail in this article of mines. I won’t bother to answer those claims in this response as the articles I’ve previously written and subsequently linked to (see above) more than aptly go into heavily detailed study and research into these rather simple topics.

Conclusion:

I am left questioning myself as to how Chessie considered this a “refutation”, as opposed to more of an erratic tirade for the purpose of insulting me:

It is no surprise the a unregenerate natural minded man such as our Muslim blogger would be blinded to the Spiritual truths contain in scripture, the Word of God tells us

At this point, I suppose he gave up on trying to respond to my argument and proceeded to just write a post to give the illusion his blog is still active, other than that I can’t fathom a reason he’d write something so silly. My arguments therefore stand and I do look forward to seeing someone else eventually try to respond to them.

The pseudo ex-Muslim and Islamophobe, Chessie Williams has authored a piece, portraying his absolute ignorance of both Islamic and Christian theologies. I personally apologize on his behalf for the time anyone has wasted on reading his article. With that in mind, let’s begin to analyse what he’s said and what reality would prefer to have us believe:

“..Adam forgot and his offspring forgot, Adam made a mistake and his offspring made mistakes”. Hadeeth in At-Tirmidhi also in Tafsir Ibn Kathir

This is what he begins with, and I’m very sure that what he’s attempting to portray cannot be made extant from this quotation. All this hadith is saying, is that Adam {as} made mistakes and his offspring (mankind) also made mistakes, this is part of the human nature which Allaah further explains through His Prophet {saw}:

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “I swear by Him in whose hand is my soul, if you were a people who did not commit sin, Allah would take you away and replace you with a people who would sin and then seek Allah’s forgiveness so He could forgive them.” [Sahīh Muslim (2687)]

Therefore it is in this regard, that Adam’s {as} sinning and his offspring’s sinning, is allowed (these acts against God’s commands) because it has a purpose and that purpose is for Allaah to forgive them of their sins. This then puts Chessie’s quote into context, the hadith does not mean because Adam {as} sinned, that we would all sin, but that Adam’s {as} sinning is part of why God created us, and that sinning is what God expects of us humans, so that we may seek forgiveness from Him. Therefore Adam’s {as} sinning is not permanent upon him, as that would mean forgiveness was never an option, yet we can logically derive the view that sinning presupposes forgiveness through the Hadith in Sahih al Muslim. He then goes on to make a series of incoherent and unintelligible statements:

Islam claims that Allah forgave Adam of the sin of eating from the tree(in the middle of the Garden), there is no original Sin, everyone is born sinless on the natural inclination of Islam, and Sin is purely individualist(No concept of Adam being mankind’s Federal head). Allah doesn’t allow anyone to carry the burden of another persons Sin(certainly not Adams).

Perhaps it would be rash of me to point this out, but I am perturbed by the ignorance that Chessie Williams is spewing. To begin with, indeed God is just, He does not place a burden upon a person where it is not due, He is Ar Rahman, Ar Rahim, (Most Loving, Most Caring) and it is in this light that Islamic theology accepts that each human enters this world sinless, they have not yet had the chance to sin before birth and by entering the world, they now have a medium to exercise their freewill, wherein that can choose to obey or disobey. It is absolutely unjust and irrational to think that God would cast a being with sin before they’ve yet had the chance to do so. Perhaps this is the unjust God which Chessie believes in, but this is not the nature of the God which Islam allows us to have faith in.

Secondly it is absurd to think that because Adam {as} sinned that we all have inherited his sin, if that is the case, should we also not inherit his good? Where is the original good deed in Christianity? Rather, it is a faith which looks to devalue the human ability, whereas we as Muslims accept the reality that we are adults, we do live and function in this world and therefore we accept the responsibility for the consequences of our actions. Perhaps it is ideal for Chessie and his zealot Christian brethren to have a fanciful belief that they are not responsible for their actions, but this is petulant and inane. Adam {as} sinning does not negate him from being the first man or the first human on the earth as Chessie would have us believe. In fact the Bible agrees with Islam in that no one person bears the sin of another:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. – Ezekiel 18:20

as well as…

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. – Deuteronomy 24:16

Therefore we ask that Chessie takes responsibility for his actions and comes to his own, that he is indeed an adult. Even if you assume it’s a nonsensical Islamic belief, he cannot and should not ignore the commands of His Lord from within the Bible. If that is the case, then indeed his faith is as fraudulent as they come. Chessie then provides a short chronological list of the events that led to Adam {as} being removed from Jannah. He ends this list with a presupposed contradiction:

But what happens after that is the source of contradiction.
5 Allah orders Adam to get down from Jannah to earth, and from then on the following consequences take place:
A. He is enemies with Iblis.
B. Suffers death, sickness, and disease
C His children in turn suffer death, sickness, and disease
D. Man is subject to continual sinning, when before Adams Sin there was no Sin in man
E. Man is subject to being led astray from their pure fitrah and now risks going to hell
F. The world it seas, land and inhabitants have to now suffer because of Adams Sin.
“Corruption has appeared in the land and the sea on account of what the hands of men have wrought, that He may make them taste a part of that which they have done, so that they may return.[30.42] Ar-rum .

Forgive his appalling grammar, it took me a while to fully comprehend what his point was, I do understand that he’s under a lot of stress after being unable to defend himself from his own misgivings, but that does not excuse him from taking sometime to be considerate and accept that people would actually read what he writes.

The Qur’an answers all of his claims in one ayah, before Adam {as} sinned, God said in the Qur’an why He was creating Adam {as} and that He knew what Adam {as} would do on the earth:

Therefore, Adam {as} was created to be placed on earth and God knew Adam {as} would sin. The sinning of mankind isn’t due to Adam {as} sinning, but the nature of mankind, according to the ayah, is that mankind’s feeble nature would allow them to sin as it is allowed by God. Also, Adam {as} being sent to the earth was the purpose of his creation as we read from the Ayah above. In this regard, the Qur’an clearly refutes Chessie, Adam {as} was created to live on the earth, this was part of God’s plan (Qadr) as we read from the Ayah and that God created Adam {as} knowing that Adam {as} and his progeny would do evil on the earth, as God granted them the freewill to do so.

Whereas in Islam, Adam {as} being sent to the earth and God allowing him and his progeny to live here was God’s plan, in Christianity it was a mistake, and therefore this is why Christians have to create excuses for mankind being sent to earth and doing evil:

The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. – Genesis 6:6

Recall, above we read that Chessie’s concept of God is one who creates man with sin, so God from the on start has condemned men, then God places men on earth due to a mistake which He did not foresee and therefore God regretted that He placed mankind on earth because this was not what God intended. This therefore brings us to two conclusions:

(1) Islam holds the belief that Adam {as} had freewill and was created with it, God created Adam {as} and his progeny to live on earth, knowing they would sin. This was all His plan.

(2) Christianity holds the belief that Adam’s {as} progeny are born with sin, God was not all knowing and did not foresee the evil His creation would do and therefore God made a mistake (He regretted) sending men to live on earth, it was not His plan.

Chessie then proceeds to demolish his own arguments further by making the following statement:

If Adam was truly forgiven then his state should have reverted back to what it was prior to his Sin, but instead as demonstrated(from the Quran) everything changed including the very nature of Mankind, and how he related to His creator.

Chessie, I advise you to actually read the Qur’an, let us recall once more why Adam {as} was created:

Adam {as} was created to be sent to have his abode be earth (temporarily), until Yawmul Qiyamah (the Day of Judgement). This was God’s plan, because God is All Knowing and He Himself has said, “I know what you do not know”. Indeed, Chessie has not read the Qur’an therefore he could not have come to this understanding. Ignorance is bliss for Chessie as it allows him to pervert his understanding of Islam, one would think that a self claimant to being highly educated in Islam would know what the 30th verse of the second chapter says, but alas, we find fools everywhere, Chessie is by no means any exception. As the famous Latin saying goes….”damnant quod non intelligunt“, they condemn what they do not understand.

He then tries to portray Adam {as} as being devoid of God’s mercy, that Adam {as} is incapable of having a good relationship with His Lord:

We know from narrations that Sin cause’s one to be banned from having direct relational communion with God…

Yet, the ayat he references deals with the Day of Judgement:

“Nay! Surely, they (evil doers) will be veiled from seeing their Lord that Day” al-Mutafiffoon 83:15

Yet, God in the Qur’an refutes Chessie’s claim again, God praises Adam {as} and lauds him as one who has received God’s grace and mercy:

Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate.- Qur’an 2:37.

To summarize, Adam {as} being sent to the earth was one of his purposes for being created and his allowance of freewill to do good or cause evil was determined by Allaah, it was not an unexpected surprise which caused God to have a panic attack and have subsequent regret and grievances as Genesis 6:6 would lead us to believe. God willing, Chessie Williams does read this and in doing so, does learn to read the first 30 verses of the second chapter of the Qur’an.

It is beyond fanciful and absurd, self delusional rhetoric to assume that the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, is sin. Rather there are many facets of theological disagreement, beyond law, but dealing with the very nature of God. Therefore when Chessie L. Edwards makes a statement like this:

The difference between Christianity and Islam boils down to the issue of Sin

It only leaves much to be desired. Either Chessie Edwards has to overly simplify and generalize our faiths differences to negotiate his ignorance on these matters or he simply was being lazy. He then proceeds to summarize what he assumes Islam teaches about getting into paradise:

Islam says if you strive hard, be really religious and become a Muhsin(A good doer) upon Ihsan(The highest level of Islamic spirituality) you can purify your own heart and earn yourself a place in this Garden.

The premise of freewill which God has created us with, allows us humans to choose whether to do good or to commit sin. If it is, that God did not want us to have this choice, then we would either only sin or only do good, then we would not have been created with the ability of freewill. What Chessie is trying to imply is that we cannot by ourselves do good, or that we will never be able to do enough good to gain heaven on our own merit. To an extent this is true, we cannot rely on our own acts to get us into heaven because as humans we often err without reason. However that does not indicate that God did not give us a solution.

One of God’s attributes is to be Ar Rahman (The Most Merciful), with that in mind His mercy is as such that He is oft forgiving and most forgiving. One way we can seek to gain paradise is through God’s mercy and that relates to our sincerity in our repentance for our sins. We read this in both the Bible and the Qur’an:

Qur’aan 25:71
And whosoever repents and does righteous good deeds, then verily, he repents towards Allâh with true repentance.

Qur’aan 28:67
But any that (in this life) had repented, believed, and worked righteousness, will have hopes to be among those who achieve salvation.

Qur’aan 3:89
Except for those that repent (even) after that and make amends: for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Qur’aan 7:153
But those who do wrong but repent thereafter and (truly) believe― verily Thy Lord is thereafter Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Qur’aan 20:82
Surely I am the Most-Forgiving for him who repents and believes and acts righteously, then follows the right path.

2 Chronicles 32:26
Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the LORD’s wrath did not come on them during the days of Hezekiah.

Job 34:33
Should God then reward you on your terms, when you refuse to repent? You must decide, not I; so tell me what you know.

Job 36:10
He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.

Isaiah 30:15
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.

Matthew 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Mark 6:12
They went out and preached that people should repent.

Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Luke 15:10
In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

and both the Bible and the Qur’aan have many more of these quotes. There is a common theme that we can derive from the above quotations. Believe (have faith), do good works and repent for whatever sins you have. Therefore, it is in this regard, that we can accept that Islam and Christianity agree on a plan for salvation. The problem however, has come with those people who have deviated from the true religion of the Christ. Instead of obeying his words of belief in God, doing good works and repenting, they rather believe in him as a God, and seek repentance through his alleged death, both things he himself never mentions in the New Testament.

What is most ironic however, is the hypocritical view of Chessie, this is what he has to say if someone rejects Islam:

As for the vast majority of everyone else they will have to take God’s wrath upon themselves by being burned in hell until they atone for their Sins. How long a person stays in the fire and how much wrath they take is all up to the will of God..it could be 50 years or it could be 50,000 years.

Yet, this is also true for Christianity. A person who rejects the Christ as a God is deemed a sinner and therefore will suffer eternal perdition( torture/ punishment in hell):

2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

After having said this, is Chessie denying that God will punish disbelievers and therefore that’s why he mentions the punishment as endorsed by Islam, or is he trying to paint Islam as being barbaric because disbelievers are punished? I am asking because as displayed above, even his own faith endorses the position of eternal punishment for disbelievers. Even the acts of believers are rejected according to the Bible:

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Whereas the Qur’aan says:

Surah 99:1-8
When the earth with be trembled with its quake, and the earth will bring forth its burdens, And man will say, “What has happened to it?” That day it will describe all its happenings, Because its Lord will have so commanded it. That day the people will come back (from the place of reckoning) in different groups, so that they may be shown (the fruits of) their deeds. So, whoever does any good act (even) to the weight of a particle will see it. And whoever does evil (even) to the weight of a particle will see it.

Whether it be a smile or a thought, essentially, in Islam, any moment not spent in sin, is a moment earned in good acts/ deeds. This is the mercy and glory of God’s love for mankind:

Narrated Anas (may God be pleased with him): The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “My Lord says, ‘If My slave comes nearer to me for a span, I go nearer to him for a cubit; and if he comes nearer to Me for a cubit, I go nearer to him for the span of outstretched arms; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ “ – Sahih al Bukari : Book 93 : Hadith 627.

On the other hand however, as Chessie, has correctly stated, the standard that God holds man to is very low. While Islam acknowledges that mankind are sinners, it also accepts that mankind also does good, however, let’s see what Christianity says about mankind according to Chessie:

Christianity on the other hand says man is totally depraved and a natural born habitual Sinner. God’s standard’s of obedience is that you never disobey Him not even once.. which mankind no matter how hard it tries can ever accomplish.

Christianity according to Chessie Edwards, is a faith that holds men to be incapable bumbling idiots, that couldn’t do good if they wanted to, as in his terms, he’s said, “totally depraved”, i.e. completely morally corrupt and perverted. This is a contradiction however, if mankind was completely morally corrupt, then that would mean that we had no freewill. Following my aforementioned assertion on freewill, we can gather that Chessie believes we don’t necessarily have freewill because we can only sin and err, i.e. do evil. With that in mind, then he must accept that God created us without freewill, otherwise, he has to retract his absurd statement and accept that we do have a choice and that we are capable of doing good. Hence it is why we see God forgiving men in the Bible and accepting their repentance:

Isaiah 30:15
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.

It isn’t unusual to find Mr. Edwards contradicting his own scripture, but the lengths he goes, in consort with his frequency is quite alarming to say the least. I also must ask of him to prove his second statement, that the Bible commands that you not disobey God once, or else you earn eternal damnation. He continues to disparage his being, by insulting his very position as human:

Every human being know matter how religious or spiritual they are will always fall and Sin sooner or later. Sinners rightfully deserve God’s wrath because God has decreed so, but again weak imperfect humans could never stand under His wrath, Hell is not temporarily it’s eternal you never get out.

I agree that we will all sin sooner or later, whether out of mistake or vice, disobedience is inevitable. However Chessie acts as if God is devoid of mercy and as if God’s only attribute is that of wrath and vengeance. This is not the case, for when God revealed the Tawrah to the Children of Israel, not only did He reveal guidelines, He also revealed punishments and along those punishments, further means of expiation for those sins. Fasting, sacrifice, all means of removing sin. Therefore the very premise that Chessie is asserting, that God will take wrath upon a person for his very being, or because he has committed one sin, is contradicted by the teachings of the scripture. He then goes on to demonstrate what I will call stark ignorance:

As hopeless as that sounds and man’s ability to save himself is hopeless.. out of God’s Love and Mercy He provided a substitute so that anyone who’s has complete Faith in it can be saved. God provided the promised Messiah; God the only perfect one come to the world to live the life of a perfect Muhsin that you are too weak to accomplish and to take the wrath you are to frail to stand under.

He instead preaches that God places His wrath only on one person and we should accept that God’s mercy was to place our sins and the consequential wrath, upon another person. Yet, this contradicts the understanding of God’s mercy. Why would God, who judges each person individually, punish someone else for our inequities. This is neither fair nor just. Quite unlike God’s justice. What is further more alarming, is the belief that Chessie still has to repent according to the Bible for his sins.

My question is this, if belief that Jesus died for your sins, earns you salvation (i.e. freedom from sin and the punishment of sin), then which Christian can claim to be sinless and which Christian can claim that he needs not repent? Can Chessie Edwards measure up to those claims?

Definitely no, as he said himself, man is totally depraved, therefore his concept of “salvation” is merely a fanciful though, an appeal to wishful thinking, fallacious and non-sensical. May God guide those who believe in such fairy tales.

وَلَا تَهِنُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَنتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ
So do not lose heart or be grieved, for you will surely prevail if you are believers. – Qur’aan : Al i Imran (3) : 139.

Chessie Edwards love appealing to Sam Shamoun, he doesn’t have room to think for himself, his entire website is literally a text form for the long winded and ignorant speeches that Sam gives on ABN Sat. Almost every other argument he presents is verbatim from the mouth of Sam with the addition of, “I’m an Ex-Muslim”, as if that phrase adds any additional validity to his inane claims. Neither Sam nor Chessie are well educated in Christian theological history, at best they are internet scholars, if Google or Wikipedia ever goes offline we won’t be able to hear a single new argument. To be quite honest, none of Sam’s arguments are new either, just read a few of William Muir’s books or Abraham Geiger’s works or some of Raymond Lull’s writings against Islam and you’ve pretty much heard all the missionary rants. Most missionaries enjoy stating that the Qur’aan got the trinity wrong. Let’s refute this claim and in doing so, refute Sam as well.

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

Christians assert that they don’t take Mary as a God, therefore the Qur’aans claim is wrong. However a simple but substantial and formidable refutation to this is to prove one of two cases:

(1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.(2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

The premise the Qur’aan operates under, or the modus operandi, the operational term, deities, i.e. Gods [إِلَـٰهَيْنِ]. In Islamic theology, to take something or someone as a God, beside Allaah is termed Shirk. There are many ways to commit Shirk, it can be through worship, through seeking intercession, by praying to someone beside God, or even attributing God’s attributes to anything other than God. For example if God is All Knowing, but I say that Mary is all knowing, then in this case I would have committed shirk. With this in mind, can I demonstrate anywhere in Christian theology where Shirk [associating God’s attributes to Mary] occurs?

Proving: (1) To show atleast one Christian aligned sect which engaged in Mary worship or took Mary as a God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The existence of the obscure sect of the Collyridians, whom St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounces for their sacrificial offering of cakes to Mary, may fairly be held to prove that even before the Council of Ephesus there was a popular veneration for the Virgin Mother which threatened to run extravagant lengths.” This by itself proves my first premise, that there was a group of Christians, the Collyridians of whom engaged in rampant worship of Mary. As famous Catholic speaker Patrick Madrid as defined them:

The heresy of the Collyridians was very simple: They worshiped Mary.

Whether or not Sam Shamoun or Chessie Edwards considers the Collyridians as Christian does not matter. They are seen as a heretical Christian sect and as such, their worship of Mary complies with the Qur’aanic claim.

Proving: (2) To show where a majority of Christian sects worship Mary or took Mary as a God.

What’s unknown to most missionary zealots is the clear cut Mary worship involved in today’s prominent Christian sects, i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism. It might seem odd, or unclear to most Christians, but the focal point of Christendom revolves around sin. In this light, we have to recall the Immaculate Conception, this refers to the conception of Mary. For Jesus to have been born sinless, he had to be rid of the original sin and to be born free of the original sin, you cannot be born through the womb of a woman. However this problem is solved in Christian theology by God granting Mary a special mercy or blessing, where she is pure and sinless and thus does not carry on the original sin to her child, Jesus.

However, the early Christian church in inventing the idea of the Immaculate Conception, attributed God like features to Mary:

The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

Her state is unique, supernatural and godlike. This, coming from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as evidence from the Bible of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Yet, from the Bible, they are implying her soul is like the “soul of God”, they are in essence comparing her to God or attributing to her, God like features. This constitutes Shirk, thus proving point (2). Yet it does not end there, the polytheistic quotes continue:

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures. – Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140.

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate. – Carmina Nisibena.

Conclusion:

Seeing as both points are proven above, then the claim that the Qur’aan asserts, that of Mary being taken as a God in Christendom has been proven valid and to be truthful. Sam’s biggest claim to refute the Qur’aanic statement was that Mary had been attributed to the Trinity, yet this was not the Qur’aanic assertion, the Qur’aanic statement had to do with Mary being taken as a God. Since the claim has been proven true, it rests upon Sam Shamoun to either publicly correct himself for his doctrinal error or as I expect, for him to deny the evidences and ignore this refutation.

In an embarrassing turn of events for Mr. Edwards, after this posting, I seemed to have gotten the better of him. Unfortunately his frustration has gained new grounds and he has sought to disregard debating with me, take a look at this photo:

Now let’s look at the screen shot today, several hours after the “debate” occurred:

At first glimpse, I was a bit confused, I could have sworn that the debate was there last night, yet this morning it’s absent? A seemingly strange occurrence with a funny outcome. It seems as if I pushed enough buttons to send Mr. Edwards up and over the edge. As it turns out, he blocked me on Facebook:

To ensure I wasn’t imagining this, I checked my inbox to see if I could message and ask if he had removed his posts, but upon checking, I was told I could no longer message him. As you can see the last message in my inbox was almost one month ago, to God knows what kind of video he was sending me. Just for further evidence of him blocking me after that horrendous debate:

With that ends a chapter of Mr. Edwards sending rather inappropriate messages to me for sometime, awkward debates where he embarrassed himself and well, Facebook screenshots of this guy really fumbling around. I’ll miss his comments, as they did provide a good laugh, but alas he knows he can’t resist replying to me, eventually he’ll respond whether on the website, via my email or I hope not, my cell.